On March 26, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriage. The brief was filed by attorneys John Dragseth and Timothy Holbrook.

The legal system routinely allows for the filing of “friend of the court” briefs from entities not directly involved in the case.

As pointed out by Deadspin, the brief omits one of Kluwe’s more colorful terms for describing the unlikely societal impact of allowing persons of the same gender to marry.

I am so happy that gays rights are now a part of the everyday conversation in the NFL. I only hope we start hearing more stories about the NFL and global warming, the NFL and abortion, the NFL and equal pay for women, and the NFL and racial preferences in college admissions. And when they are all done with those, they can get started on the lack of minority head coaches problem.

Two conservatives, Scalia and Thomas, are a lock to vote against gay marriage.
The 4 liberals are a lock in favor of gay marriage.

The lawyers will just have to convince only one other judge to jump over, Roberts, Kennedy, or Alito.

I’m willing to bet Roberts and/Kennedy will be the one. They have both shown to crossover to the liberal side every once in a while.

db3300 says:Feb 28, 2013 11:27 PM

“I wonder why these two are scared to admit their gay?”

—————

*there

justintuckrule says:Feb 28, 2013 11:39 PM

It was this exact slow thinking that prevented blacks and whites from commingling until we became tolerant. Bottom line…if it don’t affect you or don’t result in unnatural offspring who have no rights to be protected, people should mind their own business and let people live the way that makes them happy. Myob

osage44 says:Feb 28, 2013 11:57 PM

These two guys are no more than attention-seeking a-holes. They have no business in this lawsuit. They have nothing to contribute to this matter other than their own obnoxious desire to get noticed. Tools.

Hey Paulz624…..maybe you should admit that you don’t have a solid hold on the English language. I think you were going for they’re…meaning they are….not their, which signifies ownership. Second grade stuff really, but you’ll get there ( again, not their) buddy. Keep trying.

equating a loving same sex relationship to incest is just pathetic. History is against bigots …. always has been.

I pray an nfl record holder comes out just to prove how little sexual orientation has to do with your athletic prowess.

blackandgoldblood says:Mar 1, 2013 3:08 AM

Given current divorce rates, marriage of any sort is a bullsh*t “institution” — ESPECIALLY the economic benefits such as preferential tax breaks and other “domestic” benefits for people who are in a “marriage” that may only last a few years.

How discriminatory — especially financially — against those people that choose not to be swayed by the “marriage” industries of expensive weddings and even more expensive divorce attorneys and the joys of restraining orders and “custody” — alternating or permanent — of any offspring and “child support” and failure to pay such “child support”.

TOTAL crock residue, whether secular or faith-based — of another masses-controlling opiate: religion!

God created Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve. If every heterosexual on the planet stopped having sex the human race would become extinct. If your in the NFL & are gay you should remain quiet. Marriage is between a man & woman. Gays shouldn’t be allowed to adopt either. You don’t see 2 male or 2 female animals going at it together.

G-d didn’t write the Constitution either. All men are created equal it says. Some Americans insisted that only meant white males when it was written. Then it included colored men. Then women. People mature. Their definitons expand.

Millions of Americans have a different reading of G-d. Many believe there are thousands. Some believe none. Others that he would never incarnate himself.

When did we decide it was ok to impose our G-d on others…by law nonetheless?

vltrophy14…stupid “parrots” shouldn’t be allowed to use computers, but whatever, it’s the world I live in.

Our kids and their kids 25 or 30 years from now are going to wonder what the deal was with this issue. It’s an equality issue, plain and simple. There will be plenty of hetero people continuing the human race, so there’s really nothing to worry about there. I would like to believe that and by and large, it’ll be the prevailing though…unfortunately there are people in some parts of this country are still smarting about the “war of northern aggression”.

I respect anyone’s opinion who themselves believe that marriage is between man and woman. For me it is the same! Great! We’re in agreement. What I CANNOT respect is someone telling someone else what their value of something should be.

As for Klewe and Ayanbadejo – I applaud their efforts to exercise their rights to try and change our country. They are being active and engaging in the process. Most of us just simply moan and complain while doing nothing. Cheers to them for putting the rubber on the road. I tip my cap to them.

dolphinsrule65 says:Mar 1, 2013 8:23 AM

“God created Adam & Eve” really?
Science has proven behind an doubt that we as a HUMAN race evolved.
ps..Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations…read up ion it..
Read some science journals and get informed..You are so busy getting preached too and reading from a black book…that has been translated and rewritten more times that anyone can count.

Given current divorce rates, marriage of any sort is a bullsh*t “institution” — ESPECIALLY the economic benefits such as preferential tax breaks and other “domestic” benefits for people who are in a “marriage” that may only last a few years.

How discriminatory — especially financially — against those people that choose not to be swayed by the “marriage” industries of expensive weddings and even more expensive divorce attorneys and the joys of restraining orders and “custody” — alternating or permanent — of any offspring and “child support” and failure to pay such “child support”.

It seems that gay marriage opponents always point to religion when arguing their point. What they don’t realize is that gay marriage advocates are fighting for benefits that are provided by our supposedly secular government (ie. tax breaks, child care, etc.).

Let’s say the only difference between “marriage” and a “civil union” was the inclusion (or exclusion) of a religion. What if a “civil union” and all the same rights and benefits of a “marriage” with the only difference being a “marriage” is performed by a religious house? Would gay marriage opponents object to that?

“God created Adam & Eve” really?
Science has proven behind an doubt that we as a HUMAN race evolved.
ps..Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations…read up ion it..
Read some science journals and get informed..You are so busy getting preached too and reading from a black book…that has been translated and rewritten more times that anyone can count.
______

Most ignorant comment on this whole post and that’s saying a lot.

Punk says:Mar 1, 2013 12:09 PM

I’m still trying to figure out why it is assumed I am going to stop having sex because the dudes next door got married.

blanchonegro says:Mar 1, 2013 1:32 PM

@Truthfactory. LOVE IT! Wish I could like your comment a million more times.

stellarperformance says:Mar 1, 2013 4:34 PM

truthfactory says:
Feb 28, 2013 8:44 PM
Serious question here… Do those that support gay marriage also support incest? You could technically make the same arguments for both.
///////////////////////////////////////////

Marriage is an act of commitment. Incest is a sex act. The two are mutually exclusive.

dontfeedgigantor says:Mar 1, 2013 8:20 PM

“What they don’t realize is that gay marriage advocates are fighting for benefits that are provided by our supposedly secular government (ie. tax breaks, child care, etc.).”

I mentioned that in a post I made previously about why I don’t support gay marriage. But for some reason, every time I make a salient point, PFT deletes my comment. Here’s the original comment that got deleted:

“Don’t the same arguments that support gay marriage also support incest?”

Not at all, because the issue here is gay marriage RIGHTS. I’m sure that gay people would be perfectly happy with finding a church that will marry them if there weren’t any state involvement in marriage.

“God created Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve.”

Genesis is a story.

“If every heterosexual on the planet stopped having sex the human race would become extinct.”

We’re not talking about that, are we? We’re talking about legal recognition of gay couples.

“You don’t see 2 male or 2 female animals going at it together.”

Uh, actually you do. Nature is filled with examples of heterosexual animals (humans being one of the many).

Having said all that, I don’t support gay marriage rights because I don’t support state involvement in marriage. I think it discriminates against unmarried people. Giving married people special privileges legislates morality.